Have Women Given Up on Men?

 From Life Site News ,

"A shocking new private poll shared by one of the country’s leading data scientists claims that 30% of American women under 25 identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender."

If true, that tells me that the sexual revolution's legacy is still growing. 

First came sex.

Then came the pill.

Then came more recreational sex.

Then came legal abortion.

Then came gay liberation.

Then came approval and support of single parenthood. 

Then came internet porn.

Then came same-sex marriage.

Who needs men anyway?

I suppose that once young men were no longer needed to raise a family, and after same sex marriage was made legal, and after the entertainment industry and porn industry made lesbianism a popular fad, it was inevitable that young girls and women who enjoy the company of other females might consider entering into a more physical type of relationship with their same-sex friends.

I suspect that the vast majority of the respondents to the survey would consider themselves potentially bisexual and have not completely given up on men.

Sad, sad, sad.

Any More Questions?

 This Sunday's Gospel selection is Matthew 22:34-46 in which Jesus shows the Pharisees that they just can't win when they put the Lord to the test,

When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’ Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: ‘What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand,   until I put your enemies under your feet’ ”? If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?’ No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. 

When I was young, I could never win a debate with my father. He was always right, and this irritated me to no end, and we children dared not dispute his lengthy sermons on whatever teaching or warning he wanted to share over dinner. This had the effect of silencing us during the family meal because if we brought up any subject, it would result in yet another sermon. As I got older, I found that I could challenge his facts when I was sure he had gotten them wrong and sometimes his assumptions, but once he got going, I still knew that it was best to keep my mouth shut.

Similarly, when we are children we usually accept the presence of God and his teachings, but when we become rebellious teenagers we often question those teachings, and we even try to argue with Him. God, however, is not like our earthly fathers. Our earthly fathers are fallible, sinful men. God on the other hand is sinless and has this nasty habit of always being right.

The fact that the world keeps fighting God's Word is proof that we are living in a fallen world.

This is another reason why we need a Savior. 

Lord forgive me when I question you.

The Pharisees should have learned their lesson in Matthew 22 that there is one person that you just shouldn't question.

I Have One Word For Old Rocker Stevie Nicks

And that word is...

Jesus!

See if you agree after reading this from The Guardian,

Women’s rights have been on Nicks’ mind since the death of her “hero”, the US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, last month. “Abortion rights, that was really my generation’s fight. If President Trump wins this election and puts the judge he wants in, she will absolutely outlaw it and push women back into back-alley abortions.”

Nicks terminated a pregnancy in 1979, when Fleetwood Mac were at their height and she was dating the Eagles singer Don Henley. What did it mean to be able to make that choice? “If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac. There’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly. And there were a lot of drugs, I was doing a lot of drugs … I would have had to walk away.” She pauses. “And I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important. There’s not another band in the world that has two lead women singers, two lead women writers. That was my world’s mission.”

She would have had to walk away? We would have gladly adopted her drug infused baby back then. 

Please Jesus, you know what she needs. 

Jesus' Judicial Committee Hearing

In this Sunday's reading from Matthew 22:15-22, Jesus has to fend off his questioners much like a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States when he or she faces the Senate Judicial Committee.

Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ When they heard this, they were amazed; and they left him and went away.

I don't think one side of the aisle in the Judiciary Committee was amazed at our most recent Supreme Court nominee's answers, and I know they won't go away, but I sure was impressed. I remember looking out of my father's apartment down upon her  High School years ago wondering what those young girls would grow up to be never imagining this.

I am amazed. 

I wish her well. 

R. C. Priest Caught In Flagrante Delicto Filming Porn on the Church's Altar

From Big League Politics comes the revolting story,

"Father Travis Clark of the Archdiocese of New Orleans was arrested and charged with obscenity after a parishioner discovered him filming sexual acts with two women on the church altar of Sts. Peter and Paul. Court documents indicate that Clark had been utilizing a filming setup to record a pornographic film when a parishioner noticed church lights were in use, before notifying the police when observing his activities through a window."

"Mindy Dixon, 41, and Melissa Cheng, 23 were also arrested and charged under provisions of Louisiana law that criminalize sexual acts within public view."

"One of the women arrested for the act, a self-identifying satanist, had announced in a tweet that she was planning on 'defiling a house of God' the weekend before her arrest."

The Archbishop reacted swiftly, 

“'His desecration of the altar in Church was demonic. I am infuriated by his actions. When the details became clear, we had the altar removed and burned. I will consecrate a new altar tomorrow.' Archbishop Aymond promised that Clark would never again serve in Catholic ministry in any capacity. Clark has been immediately suspended from his duties, and has since posted a $25,000 bail bond from county jail."

I assume Fr. Clark's application to serve in the Episcopal organization is already on the way to 815. 

That King is Too Mean

In this Sunday's reading from Matthew 22:1-14 we hear the parable of the wedding banquet.  

Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, “Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.” But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.

 ‘But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” For many are called, but few are chosen.’

In all my years as an Episcopalian, I never heard a satisfactory expository sermon that tackled the second half of the parable in which the man without a wedding robe gets tossed out into a very bad place. An attempt to go there might mean mentioning the "H" word, and we know that place does not exist in the revisionist's vocabulary. In fact, the "H" word is not even in The Revisionist Dictionary. I checked. Help me come up with an entry.

When revisionists can't find a way to explain something, they usually simply ignore it.  

1979 BCP Thrown Under the Bus With Bishop Love

“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed."- Richard Neuhaus 

Revisionists and progressives are jumping for joy after the Episcopal Bishop of Albany William Love was found guilty of violating the organization's canons when he forbade priests in his diocese to perform blessings of same-sex marriages. 

The decision may be found here. I present the summary opinion which basically throws the 1979 Book of Common Prayer under the bus.

The panel claims in a unanimous judgement that Bishop Love, 

" ...violated Canon IV.4.1(c) in that his November 10, 2015 Pastoral Directive violated the Discipline of the Church, as Resolution B012 was properly constituted and passed as an authorized revision to the BCP as expressly provided for in Constitution Article X (b), thus requiring that all Bishop Diocesans permit their clergy the option to utilize such rites. "

This is outrageous. A resolution becomes an "authorized revision to the BCP". The rules regarding Prayer Book revision are much stricter than that.  

TEC has further met its burden of establishing that Bishop Love’s Direction also violated the Discipline of the Church in that it violated Canon I.18. The canonical legitimacy of Resolution B012 rendered Canon I.18 mandatory, requiring adherence by Bishops Diocesan in permitting their Clergy the option to perform same-sex marriage rites.

Who needs bishops anyway? The General Convention rules now.

TEC has also met its burden of establishing that the Direction violated the Worship of the Church in that Resolution B012 added canonically-authorized same-sex marriage rites to the Worship of the Church pursuant to the BCP. Therefore, Bishop Love’s argument that abiding by Resolution B012 would put him in violation of the Discipline, Doctrine and Worship of the Church fails in each assertion. Resolution B012 effectively added rites of worship to which paragraph one of “Concerning the Service” regarding “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” and “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage” (“commentary to Concerning the Service”) at 422 of the BCP, describing marriage “as between a man and a woman,” does not apply.

Wow! That is classic revisionism at work. 

Second, Resolution B012 does not create a conflict between the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church where a portion of the Catechism, BCP at 861 refers to marriage in which “the man and a woman enter into a life-long union. . .”. The Rubrics to the Catechism make plain it is merely “an outline for instruction” and is “not meant to be a complete statement of belief and practice.” BCP at 844.

More classic revisionism. 

Nor can Bishop Love defend his actions under the Albany Canons where Resolution B012 was canonically authorized and TEC’s accession clause provides that diocesan canons must accede to TEC canons.

"Must accede to TEC canons" but that does not mean one must accede to General Convention resolutions!  What a kangaroo court.

Finally, Bishop Love’s defense that he cannot violate the Worship of the Church where Resolution B012 was extra-canonical, fails because Resolution B012 was properly constituted to render marriage rites as canonically authorized revisions to the BCP.

Again, to revise the BCP is a much more complicated process than simply passing a resolution of the General Convention.

Episcopalians by the hundreds of thousands have seen this kind of thing coming and have left the denomination. 

Let's hope the people of the Diocese of Albany can escape from the tyranny of the Episcopal organization and find a faithful spiritual home where they can actually believe the words they read in their Bibles and teach them to the next generation.